this slideshow

Estimating and Adjusting for Effects of
Environmental Factors in Sport Research
Will G Hopkins1, Patria A Hume1, Steve C Hollings1,
Mike J Hamlin2, Matt Spencer3
–and– Rita M Malcata1, T Brett Smith4, Ken L Quarrie5
1AUT University, Auckland, NZ
2Lincoln University, Christchurch, NZ
3Norwegian Sport University (NIH), Oslo, Norway
4University of Waikato, Hamilton, NZ
5NZ Rugby Union, Wellington, NZ
Part 1: The Linear Mixed Model: a Very Short Introduction
Linear = additive; adjusting for something; random and fixed effects.
Part 2: Environmental Effects on Performance
Track and field; triathlon; rowing; cross-country skiing; rugby union.
The Linear Mixed Model: a Very Short Introduction
Will Hopkins
Sportscience 14, 49-57, 2010
MSSE 41, 3-12, 2009
Linear = Additive
 Almost all analyses are based on a model or equation consisting of
predictor or independent variables (X1, X 2,…) added together to
predict a dependent variable (Y): Y = a + bX1 + cX2 +… + error.
• These models are all just various forms of multiple linear regression.
 Each X has values for something (e.g., temperature in °C), or is a
"dummy" variable with values of 0 or 1 to represent absence or
presence of something (e.g., venue: not indoors=0, indoors=1).
• Something with more than two levels (e.g., snow: spring, granular,
compact…) is represented by more than one dummy X.
 The effect of X1 on Y is the value of the parameter or coefficient b.
• The unit of the effect is difference in Y per difference in X1.
• So, for a dummy X, the unit is difference in Y when whatever X
represents (e.g., indoors) is present.
 You can have interactions to allow X1 to have an effect that depends
on X2 (and vice versa): Y = a + bX1 + cX2 + dX1X2.
• If X1=X2, you get a quadratic effect of X: Y = a + bX + cX2.
Adjusting for Something
 This fantastic feature arises from the additive nature of linear models.
 If Y = a + bX1 + cX2, the only possible interpretation of b is that it is the
change in Y per change in X1 when X2 and any other predictors in the
model are held constant.
 We also say b is the pure effect of X1 on Y, or the effect of X1
controlled or adjusted for all other predictors in the model.
 Ditto for all the other predictors in the model: each parameter is the
pure effect of its predictor.
 So, if the other predictors include the identities of the athletes…
• You can estimate the pure effect of each environmental condition, as if it
were all for the same athletes.
• And parameters for the athletes allow you to estimate pure differences or
changes for athletes, as if they were all in the same environment. Wow!
 Yes, but athlete identities are different from other predictors…
Random and Fixed Effects
 The athletes represent a sample from some population, so you get
different identities if you repeat the study with a different sample.
• The variation of athlete identities from sample to sample is random.
• Hence athlete identity is a random effect.
 But the identities of snow condition don't change from one sample to
another. The identities are fixed, at whatever levels you choose.
• Hence snow condition is a fixed effect.
 A mix of fixed and random effects is thus a mixed model.
• Some mixed models are also known as hierarchical or multilevel.
 More fascinating facts about fixed and random effects…
• A numeric predictor like temperature is fixed, because everyone gets the
same parameter.
• A predictor like race identity can be random, if it is sampled.
• You can include interactions between athlete identities and fixed effects to
get unique effects for each athlete.
 Here's another useful way to think about fixed and random effects…
• With fixed effects we estimate and account for means, differences
between means, or the mean effect of differences in a numeric predictor.
• With random effects, we can still estimate the individual means (e.g., for
each athlete), but we really account for variation, and we summarize it
as a standard deviation.
 The residual error (the differences between observed and predicted
values) is a random effect.
• You can have different residual SD for different clusters of data between
or within athletes. Example: more error when athletes are younger.
 You can use a spreadsheet or ANOVA-type analyses to take into
account random effects in some straightforward models.
 But sophisticated models and large datasets need a stats package
that supports mixed modeling: SAS, SPSS, R,…
• Dummy coding is automatic, but you should learn to include dummies
yourself for special models.
Environmental Factors Affecting
Track and Field Performance
Steve Hollings
Data
EJSS 12, 201-6, 2011
 From the fantastic Finnish site tilastopaja.org.
 Lifetime career performances of male and female athletes in top 16 of
any Olympics or World Champs 2000–2009.
• ~60 athletes and 1000-7000 performances in each of 19+19 events.
Analysis
See the last slide for details of the
 Separate analysis for each event. model for this and the other projects.
 Dependent: log-transformed time (track) or distance (field) to estimate
percent effects.
 Fixed effects were included to estimate mean times or distances for…
• global competitions (Olympics or World Champs) vs the rest;
• altitude above vs below 1000 m;
• other factors not presented today: indoors vs outdoors, differences in
wind speed, and mean differences in age modeled as a quadratic.
 Random effects are not presented here, but were included to account
for variation in…
• quadratic age trajectories (trends) from athlete to athlete;
• each athlete's time or distance from one race to the next (the residuals).
− Different residual SD were estimated for global senior, global junior, and other
competitions.
 Effects were assessed using magnitude-based inference.
• Thresholds for small, moderate, large and very large effects defined by
0.3, 0.9, 1.6 and 2.5 of the within-athlete variability of top athletes
between competitions (Hopkins et al., MSSE 41, 3-12, 2009) .
− The variability was 0.8% for track <3 km, 1.1% for track 3 km,
2.1% for jumps, 3.3% for throws (Hopkins, Sportscience 9, 17-20, 2005).
• Magnitudes of observed values of effects with adequate precision
(sufficiently narrow confidence intervals) were interpreted using these
thresholds.
• Almost all effects had adequate precision even at the 99% level.
Effect of global competitions
small
enhancement
Track (times)
100 to 400 m
800 m
1500 m
3000-m steeplechase
5000 m
10000 m
Field (distances)
Jumping
Throwing
trivial
effect
small
impairment
Men (%)
-0.7
0.0
0.6
-0.1
1.2
0.2
Women (%)
-0.8
-0.6
-0.1
-1.4
-0.2
-0.4
Men (%)
0.3 to 1.2
-0.4 to 0.1
Women (%)
0.5 to 0.8
-0.3 to1.7
1.7
Conclusion: compared with men, women are less strategic?
They just do their own thing?
Effect of altitude (≥ 1000 m)
small
enhancement
moderate
impairment
Track (times)
100 m
200 m
400 m
110- & 100-m hurdles
400-m hurdles
800 m
1500 m
3000 m steeplechase
5000 m
10000 m
Men (%)
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.1
-0.1
0.4
1.9
1.7
2.4
1.0
trivial
effect
large
impairment
small
impairment
very large
impairment
Women (%)
-0.4
-0.5
-0.1
-0.1
1.1
1.4
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.6
Conclusion: altitude impairs women more than men. Why?
Effect of Altitude on
Track and Field Performance
Mike Hamlin
in preparation
Data
 Actual altitudes of race venues, merged with Steve's data.
Analysis
 Same as before, but initially with altitude parsed into quantiles
(six levels: <150 m, 150-299 m,…).
Performance time
 Then with two dummy variables
Model1 Model2
to estimate a different continuous
effect of altitude below and above
some threshold (found iteratively).
• Time = Model1*Dummy1
+ Model2*Dummy2
 Not finished yet–altitude appears
to be wrong somewhere!
Dummy1=1 Dummy1=0
Dummy2=0 Dummy2=1
threshold
Altitude
Tracking Career Performance
of Successful Triathletes
Rita Malcata
submitted (almost)
Data
 Performance times of 337 female and 427 male triathletes in 419
international races over 12 years (from triathlon.org).
Analysis
 Fixed effects to account for different
types of triathlon and ability groups,
a linear calendar-year trend,
 Results: figure withheld
and a quadratic age trend.
until the manuscript is
 Random effects for individual
accepted for publication
quadratic age trends, and race
identity to adjust for environmentals.
 Conclusion: including race ID permits
useful monitoring of career trajectories.
Variability and Predictability of
Finals Times of Elite Rowers
Brett Smith
MSSE 43, 2155-60, 2011
Data
 Race times for the 10 men’s and 7 women’s single and crewed boat
classes, each with ~200–300 different boats competing in 1–33 of
the 46 regattas at 18 venues, 1999-2009 (from worldrowing.com).
Analysis
 Separate analysis for each boat class.
 Dependent: log-transformed times for percent effects.
 Fixed effects to estimate mean times for…
• race finals (A, B, C,…)
• levels of competition (World Cup, World Champs, Olympics).
 Random effects to account for variation in…
• times between boats overall and within each boat between years;
 (Random effects to account for variation in…)
• times between the finals (A, B, C,…) within a competition, assumed due to
transient differences in environmentals;
• times between venues, assumed due to consistent environmentals;
• each boat's time from one final to the next within each year (the residuals).
− Different residual SD were estimated for the A finals and the other finals.
− The residual SD for the A finals was used to get magnitude thresholds.
Results
 CV for the residuals in A finals were 0.9% (crewed boats) through 1.1%
(single sculls).
• So thresholds for small, moderate, large,... are ~0.3, 0.9, 1.6, 2.5, 4.0 %.
• Variability and thresholds for mean power are 3x more, because power =
k.speed3. So rowing is less reliable than running, where power = k.speed.
 Transient and consistent effects of environment were CV of ~3%.
• These have to be doubled before interpreting magnitude: extremely large.
 Conclusion: to monitor on-water training performance times, you will
have to measure and model environmentals.
Variability and predictability
of performance times of
elite cross-country skiers
Matt Spencer
IJSPP (in press)
Data
 Performance times in classical and free styles of women’s and men’s
distance and sprint internationals, each with 410-569 athletes in 1-44
races at 15-25 venues 2002-2011 (from fis-ski.com).
Analysis
 Similar to the analysis of rowing.
 Separate analyses for each type of race for annual top-10 skiers.
 Fixed effects to estimate mean times for…
• snow conditions (6 types);
• altitude (below or above 1200 m);
• different race distances (simple numeric) to adjust for different course
lengths.
 Random effects to account for variation in…
• times between skiers overall and within each skier between years;
• times between races, assumed due to differences in terrain and
environmentals not associated with snow conditions;
• each skier's time from one race to the next within each year (the residuals).
Results
 CV for the residuals of the top 10 were 1.1-1.4%.
• Similar to rowers. But here power = k.speed, so skiers are more reliable
than rowers and almost as good as runners.
• Thresholds for small, moderate, large etc. are ~0.4%, 1.2%, 1.9%...
 Effect of race distance in all events ~1 %/% (% time per % distance).
 Huge variability in performance due to terrain: CV of 4-10%.
 Effects of snow and altitude (~2%) were mostly unclear, probably
because of the variability due to terrain.
 Conclusion: adjustment for environmentals revealed highly reliable
athletes in this sport.
Goal-Kicking Performance in
International Rugby Union
Ken Quarrie
submitted
Data
 6769 attempts by 101 kickers in 582 international matches 2002-2011
Analysis
 Dependent: success of the kick, modeled as the log of the odds in a
logistic regression with a generalized linear mixed model.
• Effects and SD are estimated as odds ratios and converted to percent
rates evaluated at the mean success rate to interpret magnitudes.
• Key performance indicators represented by a count of actions can be
modeled as the log of the count in a Poisson regression.
− Effects and SD are estimated as count ratios and expressed as percents.
 Thresholds for small, moderate, large, and very large success ratios
are 1.11, 1.43, 2.0, 3.3, 10 and their inverses 0.9, 0.7, 0.5, 0.3, 0.1.
 Fixed effects to estimate mean success rate for…
• different kick distances (modeled as a simple linear effect);
• different kick angles (simple linear);
• differences in kick importance (a combination of points difference between
the two teams and time remaining in the match; simple linear).
 Random effects to account for variation in…
• each kicker's mean success rate;
• the effect of kick importance on each kicker's success rate;
• success rate between matches, assumed due to transient differences in
environmentals;
• success rate between stadiums, assumed due to consistent differences in
environmentals;
• Generalized linear modeling also includes an over- or under-dispersion
factor that allows for non-randomness of events.
Results
 [withheld until the manuscript is accepted for publication]
• Some changes in ranking between raw and adjusted rates were large.
Example: Francois Steyn moved from 84/101 to 4/101.
• Some changes in ranking between raw and adjusted rates were large.
Example: Francois Steyn moved from 84/101 to 4/101.
 Conclusion: assessment of kick success is improved by adjusting for
environmental and other factors.
Summary and Conclusions
 Analyses of performance and performance indicators improve with
adjustment for environmental factors.
 Sophisticated mixed linear models are needed to deal with the
repeated measurements.
 Biomechanical variables should be amenable to such analyses,
provided there is enough repeated measurements on the subjects.
 Someone in your research group needs to be skilled with this kind of
modeling.
Technical Details of the Models
 In Steve Hollings' track-and-field study, the individual quadratic trajectories are specified by stating AthleteID,
AthleteID*Age and AthleteID*Age2 as random effects.
 In Brett Smith's rowing study, these were the random effects:
• BoatID, to estimate each boat's mean ability.
• BoatID*Year, to estimate each boat's consistent form each year.
• RaceID*Final, to estimate and adjust for variation from final to final within competitions, assumed due to transient
environmental factors.
• Venue, to estimate consistent differences between venues.
• Residual, to estimate within-boat final-to-final variability within years.
Different boat and residual variances were estimated for the A finals and the other finals to allow separate estimation
of variability of the top and other boats.
 Here are Matt Spencer's random effects:
• SkierID, to estimate each skier's overall mean ability;
• SkierID*Season, to estimate each skier's consistent ability each season;
• RaceID, to estimate and adjust for differences in terrain;
• Residual, to estimate within-skier variability between races within seasons.
 Finally Ken Quarrie's:
• KickerID, to estimate each kicker's mean success rate;
• KickerID*KickImportance, to estimate effect of kick importance on each kicker's success rate;
• MatchID, to estimate and adjust for mean differences in success rate between matches (due to environmentals on
the day);
• StadiumID, to estimate differences in success rate between stadiums (due to consistent differences in
environmentals);
• Residual, an over- or under-dispersion factor in logistic and Poisson regression that allows for non-randomness of
events or counts.